Big Boy Rules?

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know a great deal about that there high-speed pistolero training, but I would have thought you could just use a barrel or silhouette target, as an obstacle, instead of a person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iq9suWD811k#t=1m40s

Or do I just need to put on my big boy pants? 

[roo_ster]

I am not tacticool enough to serve as a shooting range barrier for another student.

[41magsnub]

I am not tacticool enough to serve as a shooting range barrier for another student.

How about a backstop?

[Doggy Daddy]

Looks like a good place for this:

[Fly320s]

Since labor appears to be cheap there (in the photo), why are there so many weedz growing?

[Doggy Daddy]

Since labor appears to be cheap there (in the photo), why are there so many weedz growing?

I'd say concealment.  I bet they recommend them as cover.

[AZRedhawk44]

Meh.  They clearly aren't allowed to draw until they are already in front of the "obstacle" student.  I'd be worried more about Jocassee hunting that white 4-door sedan later on.   

[BobR]

Barrels cost money. People pay to be the barrier. Simple economics. 


bob

[Boomhauer]

Meh.  They clearly aren't allowed to draw until they are already in front of the "obstacle" student.

This. While I don't see the point in that particular exercise on the video, I can't really say a safety rule was violated.

[GigaBuist]

Since labor appears to be cheap there (in the photo), why are there so many weedz growing?

Turnover is measured in minutes.

[AJ Dual]

I don't know a great deal about that there high-speed pistolero training, but I would have thought you could just use a barrel or silhouette target, as an obstacle, instead of a person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iq9suWD811k#t=1m40s

Or do I just need to put on my big boy pants? 

There is definitely a level where people crossing each other during live fire practice is done. The famed stories about a member of the Royal family standing in the "rubber room" during SAS CQB/Rescue practice etc. However, I'm not sure that class is "that level". 

Although, seeing as they don't draw until past the 180 deg line of the person standing there, I'd agree, no actual 4-rules safety violations are happening.

[Stand_watie]

There is definitely a level where people crossing each other during live fire practice is done. The famed stories about a member of the Royal family standing in the "rubber room" during SAS CQB/Rescue practice etc. However, I'm not sure that class is "that level". 

Although, seeing as they don't draw until past the 180 deg line of the person standing there, I'd agree, no actual 4-rules safety violations are happening.

The person standing there might be "The Judge" as to whether or not they drew too soon, which would make a point of using a person rather than an object.

[AJ Dual]

The person standing there might be "The Judge" as to whether or not they drew too soon, which would make a point of using a person rather than an object.

Good point, or it's buddy system where they each take turns judging each other on their form when drawing/presenting.

And I guess it does make sense, like if you're out at a store, you're CCW'ing, and something horrible goes down, and your spouse or even just some bystander is standing right in front of your way. Target fixation with an innocent person right in front of you is kind of a bad thing. So some reflexes/muscle memory of drawing and darting around them could be a good thing.

And maybe where "disruptive environments" comes into the class name.

[roo_ster]

There were about eight other men who I would trust to manipulate and operate their weapons in such close proximity to my own person, ten or more years ago.

These days that number is zero, including folks I met that day at the Tacky-Cool Gunz School.  And they shouldn't trust me, either, considering the trigger time I don't get these days.

Let us not use Ockham's Butterknife when his Razor points to yet more gimmicky gun school hijinks.

[Hawkmoon]

Am I the only viewer amused by the exaggerated and ritualistic "check to your right and your left" at the conclusion of each sequence? Yes, I know that after ending a specific threat it's a good idea to scan for additional threats on the flanks, but "We fight as we train." These students are being brainwashed to make a robot-like turn of the head exactly 90 degrees to the right, then 90 degrees to the left. They aren't being trained to actually see anything when they do so. In a real-world situation, depending on circumstances, it might make a lot more sense to look first to the left but someone who has undergone a rigid training such as this will reflexively look to the right regardless of what's unfolding around him. And it's possible that could get him killed.

So could making the look so robot-like that you turn right, then turn left without even seeing the threat on the right.

The people in those sequences move like their heads are operated by strings.

[Doggy Daddy]

So could making the look so robot-like that you turn right, then turn left without even seeing the threat on the right.

Truth.

Once, many years ago, I was testing a driver for his CDL license.  Bright sunny day.  He was WELL trained.  Pulled up to the RR tracks, stopped, opened the door and window, scanned and looked DIRECTLY AT THE TRAIN THAT WAS COMING OUR WAY ABOUT 100 YARDS OUT, closed the doors and started across the tracks.  The flashing lights, bells, and gates stopped him just before I did.

Yeah, he failed that attempt.

[Ben]

Okay, I'll be prepared to be flamed.

I saw nothing wrong with the video. I took a course similar to this. It included all the barrier cover / concealment shooting, as well as a drill having someone standing in front of you. In my case the drill was to use your weak arm to "sweep" the person out of your way and behind you while you draw from the holster, put two in the target with a one-handed shot as you sweep your partner back (they had to be behind you before you start to draw), then go to a standard two-handed form for the follow ups. The drill was closely supervised and I felt it was quite safe. The course instructor billed the drill as getting a loved one out of the way and behind you to engage a street mugger or robber or whatever.

My course (which was intermediate, and this one looked advanced), while covering light use (non-mounted), only did so in daylight, and we didn't do any vehicle exercises. Frankly, I like that they did that here. If I had to evaluate the two likeliest scenarios where I might need to use a pistol, it would be at night (home invasion) and in my vehicle (carjacking or similar and I can't use the car to get away). Watching the video actually is making me want to find a course where I could practice vehicle situations, especially accessing my pistol since I am always trying to figure out the whole leaving it in the holster versus putting it somewhere else in the vehicle thing. Not to mention the limited movement being belted in allows.

[Jamisjockey]

Am I the only viewer amused by the exaggerated and ritualistic "check to your right and your left" at the conclusion of each sequence? Yes, I know that after ending a specific threat it's a good idea to scan for additional threats on the flanks, but "We fight as we train." These students are being brainwashed to make a robot-like turn of the head exactly 90 degrees to the right, then 90 degrees to the left. They aren't being trained to actually see anything when they do so. In a real-world situation, depending on circumstances, it might make a lot more sense to look first to the left but someone who has undergone a rigid training such as this will reflexively look to the right regardless of what's unfolding around him. And it's possible that could get him killed.

So could making the look so robot-like that you turn right, then turn left without even seeing the threat on the right.

The people in those sequences move like their heads are operated by strings.

I've always thought it would be good training to have additional targets and interrupt the scan with them.  Maybe a pop up or swinger that is activated during the scan.

[HankB]

Looks like a good place for this:

Would hate to live in the apartments in back. (Even in China, I don't think this represents an actual shooting position for the target.)

As for the video linked in the OP . . . in theory there's no safety violation as long as the shooter doesn't draw until he's past the observer. But with pressure and the excitement of a competitive environment, I personally want no part of this exercise.

[Ben]

I've always thought it would be good training to have additional targets and interrupt the scan with them.  Maybe a pop up or swinger that is activated during the scan.

In the same course I mentioned above, the instructor or one of his assistants would often set various objects out in the training area, then ask us to identify them after we did the scan. It helped to snap us out of the "robot head turn", but most of us still failed to identify stuff more than we succeeded,  so doing it as a ritual definitely can zone you out. Having some kind of target activated that you either shoot at (or don't), as JJ suggested could certainly help make the "head turn" more useful.

[freakazoid]

I've always thought it would be good training to have additional targets and interrupt the scan with them.  Maybe a pop up or swinger that is activated during the scan.

I was going to post something like this, then you had to come along and post it first.

[Strings]

>The people in those sequences move like their heads are operated by strings.<

I just wanted to state for the record that I had nothing to do with this, or any other training video

[geronimotwo]

i don't know enough about training to critique what their doing.  it makes me want to get some training!

[TechMan]

i don't know enough about training to critique what their doing.  it makes me want to get some training!

Who the OP or the Chinese guy?   

[erictank]

Turnover is measured in minutes.

What, you don't think they stop SHOOTING to let someone do the weeding, do you?